Dr Louise Theodosiou of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, which "100% backs the ban", told the programme: "There's no evidence base to support this therapy. Your sexuality and your gender ID are inherent and there's no evidence base and no therapeutic treatment to change what is simply part of someone's nature."

Kindest regards,

James

"The Word of God is the Creation we behold and it is in this Word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man."The Age Of Reason

Dr Louise Theodosiou of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, which "100% backs the ban", told the programme: "There's no evidence base to support this therapy. Your sexuality and your gender ID are inherent and there's no evidence base and no therapeutic treatment to change what is simply part of someone's nature."

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-43373817 wrote:The Royal London Hospital for Integrated Medicine - formerly the Royal London Homeopathic Hospital - will stop providing NHS-funded homeopathic remedies in April.

In his veto message, LePage argued the legislation was overly broad and could pose a threat to the religious liberty of anti-LGBTQ people. He claimed the ban could result in unnecessarily restricting people who want to seek counseling for these issues “even at the individual’s own request.”

Wow.

That's where you'd like 5 minutes of public and recorded time to spank such inanity into the stratosphere.

Someone so alien to reasoning shouldn't be in charge of anything, let alone a fucking state.

1 Ether you adopt a position supporting “freedom of choice” (people can so whatever they what with their sexual life as long as you don’t hurt anybody) this includes accepting the fact that some gay people don´t like to be gay and accepting their right to take any treatment that they would consider necessary to hill their condition.

Or

2 You adopt a position supporting banning and censoring sexual activities that the government in turn doesn’t like. This includes accepting the fact that some goverments / societies don’t like gay people and accepting the fact that you might live in a homophobic societies that punishes “gay activities”

I would go for the first alternative. Gay people should have the right to take any therapy that they what if their desire is to hill themselves, even if there is not conclusive evidence that proves the effectiveness of these therapies.

1 Ether you adopt a position supporting “freedom of choice” (people can so whatever they what with their sexual life as long as you don’t hurt anybody) this includes accepting the fact that some gay people don´t like to be gay and accepting their right to take any treatment that they would consider necessary to hill their condition.

Why don't they like to be gay?

That's the real question.

The answer is that they're made to feel as if there's something wrong with them - almost always by those of a dogmatic religious persuasion.

Unlike religious beliefs, sexual orientation is a biological imperative - it's not as if you woke up one morning and decided, "Today, I'm going to find women/men sexually attractive!". You can always decide to change your religion - not your sexual orientation.

dandan wrote:Or

2 You adopt a position supporting banning and censoring sexual activities that the government in turn doesn’t like. This includes accepting the fact that some goverments / societies don’t like gay people and accepting the fact that you might live in a homophobic societies that punishes “gay activities”

I would go for the first alternative. Gay people should have the right to take any therapy that they what if their desire is to hill themselves, even if there is not conclusive evidence that proves the effectiveness of these therapies.

If a "therapy" is known to have deleterious effects, it has to be stopped - otherwise it's not ethical medical practice.

Those who've undergone this "therapy" have ended up depressed, and needed psychiatric care to recover.

Kindest regards,

James

"The Word of God is the Creation we behold and it is in this Word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man."The Age Of Reason

Perhaps they what a normal life, with a normal family…..If I were gay, I would at least try to cure myself. (The same would be true if I were a pedophile, I would at least try to cure myself because I would desire a normal life with a normal family, without having to decide between raping a little girl or live in sexual frustration for the rest of my life)

The point is that if I where gay, I would consider that I have the right to a therapy if I what

Dragan Glas wrote:Unlike religious beliefs, sexual orientation is a biological imperative - it's not as if you woke up one morning and decided, "Today, I'm going to find women/men sexually attractive!". You can always decide to change your religion - not your sexual orientation.

I don’t grant that premise (in red)…..People can change their sexual orientation. Other paraphilias are treated and nobody whats to ban these therapies.

f a "therapy" is known to have deleterious effects, it has to be stopped - otherwise it's not ethical medical practice.

Granted, if you can show that a specific therapy has negative effects I would also agree that it should be banned, this would be true in any type of treatment.

The ultimate question is:

Why can’t a gay, a pedophile or someone with Acrotomophilia go to a therapy to treat his condition if his is not comfortable with it?

When you say 'cure' you are implying that homosexuality is some sort of ailment, a malfunction, something in need of 'curing'

So, what is the basis for this? The fact that it doesn't appeal to you? It doesn't appeal to me either, but I couldn't give a monkey's if it appeals to others. Or is it something in the big book of multiple choice that makes you think this way?

When you say 'cure' you are implying that homosexuality is some sort of ailment, a malfunction, something in need of 'curing'

So, what is the basis for this? The fact that it doesn't appeal to you? It doesn't appeal to me either, but I couldn't give a monkey's if it appeals to others. Or is it something in the big book of multiple choice that makes you think this way?

If I where bald, I would probably try to “cure” my baldness. I wouldn’t be implying that being bald is a malfunction, nor that being bald is “bad” is simply a condition that some people don’t like, and these people have the right to try to fix that situation.

If there is something about your personality, your body or your sexual orientation etc.... that you personally don’t like you have the right to try to fix that situation, as long as you don’t affect others. This is uncontrovertibly true, and you know it, you are simply making an arbitrary exception for gay therapy.

English is not my first language, so please tell me what word should I use instead of “cure” …hill? Fix? What word would be appropriate.

Not 'probably' - you can't calculate the probability of that to any meaningful extent seeing as you aren't bald (you said 'if' you were) Many, many people who are bald don't seek to do anything about it. Some do, but I would speculate most don't. Analogy dismissed.

I wouldn’t be implying that being bald is a malfunction, nor that being bald is “bad” is simply a condition that some people don’t like, and these people have the right to try to fix that situation.

For those who wish to, yes they indeed have that right.

If there is something about your personality, your body or your sexual orientation etc.... that you personally don’t like you have the right to try to fix that situation

I suppose so, but then it's back to DG's question as to why they would feel there is something wrong that needs curing (in the case of homosexuality, as per your post)

This is uncontrovertibly true

This is the first time I've personally had a conversation with you, but I doubt anything you've ever said here is incontrovertibly true.

and you know it

Don't tell me what I know. Or I'll return the irritation by telling you what you know - let's choose a different path.

you are simply making an arbitrary exception for gay therapy

I've done no such thing. I've made no exception, arbitrary or substantiated, proven or unproven, justified or unjustified. I just asked you a question and pointed out the obvious assumption in your position on this. That being that gays need 'curing'

English is not my first language, so please tell me what word should I use instead of “cure” …hill? Fix? What word would be appropriate

I really don't know. As this isn't something that needs to be remedied the whole thing is kinda moot. I hate cucumber. I don't wish to remedy that any more than I wish to remedy or be 'cured' of my heterosexuality.

*SD* wrote:I've done no such thing. I've made no exception, arbitrary or substantiated, proven or unproven, justified or unjustified. I just asked you a question and pointed out the obvious assumption in your position on this. That being that gays need 'curing'.

Well I answered to your question, I am using the term “cure” in the same way one would use it in the context of “curing baldness” it is not meant to be offensive. Nor to imply that you what to fix something that is “bad”

I´ll ask you a question:Should a gay man have the right to go to a therapy (that may or may not work) as an attempt to change his sexual orientation?

Alright dandan. I admit I have done this before, I did it with Vego so I guess one more post wont hurt. (By 'this' I mean saying I won't reply further and then replying further - lack of will power I guess)

You asked -

Should a gay man have the right to go to a therapy (that may or may not work) as an attempt to change his sexual orientation?

Given the way you've worded this, my answer is yes. PROVIDED the reason he (or indeed she) wishes to is out of personal CHOICE NOT BORNE of OPPRESSION OR COERCION.

*SD* wrote:Alright dandan. I admit I have done this before, I did it with Vego so I guess one more post wont hurt. (By 'this' I mean saying I won't reply further and then replying further - lack of will power I guess)

You asked -

Should a gay man have the right to go to a therapy (that may or may not work) as an attempt to change his sexual orientation?

Given the way you've worded this, my answer is yes. PROVIDED the reason he (or indeed she) wishes to is out of personal CHOICE NOT BORNE of OPPRESSION OR COERCION.

That's really just counseling, open-ended and agenda-free. Gay Conversion Therapy is not counseling. It's a form of proselytizing where specific interpretations of particular dogma are employed to coerce people into believing that their nature should be considered evil, and that they should deny their own feelings. Counseling is healthy; Gay Conversion Therapy is not.

*SD* wrote:Alright dandan. I admit I have done this before, I did it with Vego so I guess one more post wont hurt. (By 'this' I mean saying I won't reply further and then replying further - lack of will power I guess)

You asked -

Should a gay man have the right to go to a therapy (that may or may not work) as an attempt to change his sexual orientation?

Given the way you've worded this, my answer is yes. PROVIDED the reason he (or indeed she) wishes to is out of personal CHOICE NOT BORNE of OPPRESSION OR COERCION.

That's really just counseling, open-ended and agenda-free. Gay Conversion Therapy is not counseling. It's a form of proselytizing where specific interpretations of particular dogma are employed to coerce people into believing that their nature should be considered evil, and that they should deny their own feelings. Counseling is healthy; Gay Conversion Therapy is not.

even if true, gay people should have the right to decide if they what to take a therapy.